Recently the Korean Constitutional Court had made some decisions which are basically founded on ‘Trennungstheorie.’ Trennungstheorie is originated from the German Constitutional Court's decision which was made on the case so called ‘Nassauskiesung.’Trennungstheorie insists that ‘Inhalts- und Schrankenbestimmung’ and ‘Enteignung’ are different institution in nature. According to Trennungstheorie, ‘Inhalts- und Schranken- bestimmung’ is general and abstract prescription about property which made by the National Assembly, but ‘Enteignung’ means deprivation of one's property which is prescibed in ‘Inhalts- und Schrankenbestimmung.’As Trennungstheorie insists, the contents and limits of property schould be prescribed by the National Assembly, and the way and range of compenstion schould be also prescribed not by courts but by the National Assembly. And only the Constitutional Court has the power to decide the law which is unconstitutional because of lack of compensation clause unconstitutional. I also agree with the indication of Trennungs- theorie that the guarantee of property means ‘Bestandsgarantie.’But I don't agree with Trennungstheorie on some points of view. There are some differences between the Korean Constitution and the German Grundgesetz. The concept of formal ‘Enteignung’ cannot be accepted in the Korean Constitution. And I think Art.23.Ⅲ does not mean ‘Junktimklausel.’ When something like ‘Enteignung’ is prescribed for public interests by a law which lacks compensation clause, it schould not be decided unconstitutional because of lack of compensation clause.